What’s Behind Trump’s Promise To Stop Global Wars? – OpEd

As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House in January 2025, his campaign promise to “end wars” has captured global attention. This ambitious pledge, a cornerstone of his foreign policy platform, raises critical questions about its feasibility and potential implications for international relations.

The Promise of Peace

Throughout his campaign, Trump repeatedly asserted his ability to swiftly resolve ongoing conflicts, most notably in Ukraine and the Middle East. His bold claim of ending the Russia-Ukraine war “within 24 hours” has been a particular point of focus. This rhetoric aligns with his broader “America First” doctrine, emphasizing a non-interventionist approach and prioritizing U.S. interests above global entanglements.

Trump’s vision for ending wars extends beyond specific conflicts. He has positioned himself as a peacemaker, contrasting his approach with that of previous administrations. “I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to stop wars,” Trump declared in his victory speech, referencing his first term’s relative lack of new military engagements.

The Ukraine Question

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine presents perhaps the most immediate test of Trump’s war-ending ambitions. His approach appears to diverge significantly from the current administration’s policy of robust military aid to Kyiv.

Trump and his allies have suggested a more transactional approach to the conflict. Reports indicate that a potential Trump administration might condition further military aid to Ukraine on Kyiv’s willingness to engage in peace negotiations with Moscow. This strategy, outlined by former Trump advisors, could involve freezing the current front lines and establishing a demilitarized zone.

Critics argue that such an approach could effectively force Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, potentially compromising its sovereignty and long-term security. There are concerns that this policy might be seen as accommodating Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions, potentially emboldening further aggression.

Middle East Complexities

Trump’s pledge to bring peace to the Middle East faces equally daunting challenges. The ongoing conflicts involving Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah present a complex web of historical, religious, and geopolitical factors.

During his first term, Trump took several actions that heavily favored Israel, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moving the U.S. embassy there, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. These moves were seen as undermining Palestinian claims and aspirations for statehood.

Trump’s return to power has been welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners. This suggests that Trump’s policies may continue to align closely with Israeli interests, potentially at the expense of Palestinian rights and aspirations.

Potential Approaches to Ending the Conflict

Trump has vowed to bring peace to the Middle East, including resolving the conflicts involving Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah. However, his approach may prioritize a quick resolution over addressing long-standing Palestinian grievances:

1. Pressure on Palestinians: Trump may push for a deal that favors Israeli interests, potentially pressuring Palestinians to accept terms that fall short of their long-standing demands for statehood and sovereignty.

2. Limited Palestinian Statehood: Trump’s vision for peace may involve a limited form of Palestinian autonomy rather than a fully sovereign state. This could fall short of Palestinian aspirations for self-determination.

3. Economic Focus: Trump’s approach might emphasize economic incentives for Palestinians over political rights, similar to the “Peace to Prosperity” plan proposed during his first term.

Concerns for Palestinian Rights and Aspirations

Several aspects of Trump’s potential policies raise concerns for Palestinians:

1. Annexation Risk: There are fears that Trump might give Israel a “carte blanche” to annex parts of the West Bank, further undermining prospects for a viable Palestinian state.

2. Refugee Issue: Trump’s policies may not adequately address the rights of Palestinian refugees, a key issue in any comprehensive peace agreement.

3. Gaza Reconstruction: It’s unclear how Trump would approach the reconstruction of Gaza and the return of displaced Palestinians, especially in northern Gaza.

4. Humanitarian Concerns: Trump’s emphasis on quickly ending conflicts may overlook the need for addressing humanitarian crises and long-term development in Palestinian territories.

Potential for Deterring Israeli Aggression

While Trump has expressed support for Israel, there are some indications that he might seek to moderate Israeli actions:

1. Urging Conflict Resolution: Trump has reportedly urged Netanyahu to “wrap up” military operations in Gaza by the time he returns to office. This suggests he may pressure Israel to end its most aggressive military actions.

2. Public Relations Concerns: Trump has noted that Israel is losing “the PR war in Gaza,” indicating he might push for less visibly aggressive tactics.

3. Deal-making Approach: Trump’s self-proclaimed deal-making skills could be applied to broker agreements between Israel and Palestinian factions, potentially reducing violence.

However, the recent escalation of violence in Gaza and the broader region complicates any straightforward path to peace. Trump has suggested that his hardline stance against Iran would have prevented the current conflict. Yet, the reality on the ground may prove more resistant to quick solutions.

The NATO Factor

Trump’s approach to ending wars also intersects with his skepticism towards NATO. His previous questioning of the alliance’s relevance and criticism of European countries’ defense spending raises concerns about the future of transatlantic security cooperation.

Reports suggest that Trump might consider a deal with Russia to block future NATO expansion, particularly regarding Ukraine and Georgia. Such a move would mark a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and could have far-reaching implications for European security dynamics.

Diplomatic Tools and Trade Wars

While Trump’s focus on ending military conflicts is clear, his broader foreign policy approach suggests a preference for economic leverage over traditional diplomacy. His first term was characterized by the use of tariffs and trade negotiations as tools of international influence.

This strategy of “peace through strength” might translate into continued economic pressure on adversaries, coupled with a willingness to engage in direct negotiations. Trump’s unpredictability, often cited as a negotiating tactic, could play a role in these diplomatic efforts.

Challenges and Criticisms

Trump’s war-ending ambitions face several significant challenges:

1. Complexity of Conflicts: Many ongoing wars involve deep-rooted historical, ethnic, and geopolitical factors that resist simple solutions.

2. Allies’ Concerns: U.S. allies, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, may worry about sudden policy shifts affecting their security interests.

3. Domestic Political Constraints: Congressional oversight and public opinion could limit Trump’s ability to implement dramatic foreign policy changes.

4. Long-term Stability: Critics argue that quick resolutions might prioritize short-term peace over long-term stability and justice.

5. Unintended Consequences: Rapid policy shifts could potentially embolden adversaries or create power vacuums in volatile regions.

Potential Implications

If successful, Trump’s approach could lead to a significant realignment of global power dynamics. A reduction in U.S. military engagements abroad could alter the international security landscape, potentially creating opportunities for other powers to expand their influence.

Donald Trump’s pledge to “end wars” represents a bold and potentially transformative approach to U.S. foreign policy. While the promise of peace is universally appealing, the practical implementation of this vision faces numerous obstacles and potential pitfalls.

As Trump prepares to return to the White House, the international community watches closely to see how his rhetoric will translate into action. The coming months and years will reveal whether Trump’s unconventional approach can indeed bring about the swift resolutions he promises, or if the complexities of global conflicts will prove resistant to quick fixes.

Ultimately, the success or failure of Trump’s war-ending policy will have profound implications not just for the United States, but for the entire global order. As the world grapples with ongoing conflicts and emerging threats, the effectiveness of this approach will be a critical factor in shaping international relations for years to come.